Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2017-18, declaring Rs. 3,08,870/-. During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 13,47,000/- in the bank, of which the AO treated Rs. 10,47,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's action, leading to the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. After reviewing the complete details of withdrawals and various income sources provided by the assessee, including cash withdrawals, agricultural income, and sale of milk, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient funds to make the bank deposits. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Key Issues
The key issues were the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing, and the confirmation of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE despite explanations regarding sources like cash withdrawals, agricultural income, and milk sales.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amarsang Dahyabhai Rathod, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Aekaldev Roadways, Ward-3(2)(1), Mahadev Nu Faliyu, Ahmedabad. At Kavitha Bavla, Ahmedabad-382260. [PAN :AMSPR7095 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.01.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NIAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex-Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,47,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited in the bank account us. 69A. r.ws 115BBE of the .IT. Act, 1961.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the explanation furnished by the appellant with regards the source of cash deposited in the bank account being cash withdrawals made from the bank account, agricultural income and income from sale of milk.
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making observations with regards the agricultural income declared by the assessee of Rs 2,59,225 holding that agricultural expenses should be adopted at the rate 40 percent of the of the gross agricultural receipts.
5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in not accepting the source of sale of milk of Rs.3,25,000/- for depositing of cash in the bank account on the ground that no evidence has been furnished.
6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on assumptions, conjectures and surmises without bringing any material or evidence on record to establish that the explanation furnished by the appellant is not acceptable 7 The Learned Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer wrongly applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act 1961 which is illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed
The appellant prays that the delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned 9 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 23.03.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,08,870/-. During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 13,47,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 10,47,000/- (i.e., Rs. 13,47,000/- less Rs. 3,00,000/- opening cash balance) as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act and passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, the assessee submitted complete details of withdrawals and sources, copy of which has been given to the Ld. DR.
On going through the entire details and bank statements, we find that assessee had sufficient money in his accounts for making the deposits. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2025